It's not possible to determine what a "pop" is through experimentation is it? We cannot make measurements to find out if it refers to the sound, the action, the change in distance, or all three. Should we just create our own interpretation of what a "pop" is? And if so, why is it necessary to take measurements? We cannot use the findings to make our claim.
I think we just create our own interpretation of a pop. My interpretation is the time from when the popper is set down, to when the popper leaves the ground. This is because as soon as you let the popper go on the ground, it is slowly accelerating, until it goes inside out and "pops".
I think that we have to define whether the term "pop" refers to the sound or the jump. Like Harrison said, that definition could change between groups. -Kevin Meglathery
Then what is the purpose of taking these measurements if they cannot support our claim? It does not make sense to say, "A 'pop' is the time between the initial placement of the popper and when it leaves the ground because it flies to a height of approximately 0.92 meters each time"
The pop, based on our interpretation of it as far as I can see, is the physical, VISIBLE, explosive action in which the object turns inside out and leaves the ground. I do not believe Crane would provide meter sticks to measure sound. Noah, to define the pop we don't need the "because" part of your explanation. In this lab, we are searching for what we want to search for and we just happen to call it a "pop" although, if you wanted, you could say "we are looking to measure all facets of the device's activation and initiation from the ground" but we just like to say we're measuring the "pop"
If the popper did not turn itself inside out would it make a sound. If a tree didn't fall in the woods would it make a sound. How long is a snap of your fingers. What causes the snap noise. The object does start to change but not accelerate. (Good point)
i'm sorry but i'm still having issues finding the time of the pop without simply trying to use a stopwatch, which seems ridiculously inaccurate since i generally got .4 seconds and reaction time is .2 seconds (times 2 reactions would be .4). Using a slow motion camera or video seems like its cheating and also still inefficient to me as well. I tried to use 1/2at^2 but there are two different accelerations, gravity and the turning of the popper, and time would be required to figure that out.
After completing my calculations, I got an acceleration of several hundred meters per second squared. It seems ludicrous, but it would make sense because it is making contact with the table for such a short time. Anyone else get something similar? -Kevin Meglathery
It's not possible to determine what a "pop" is through experimentation is it? We cannot make measurements to find out if it refers to the sound, the action, the change in distance, or all three. Should we just create our own interpretation of what a "pop" is? And if so, why is it necessary to take measurements? We cannot use the findings to make our claim.
ReplyDeleteI think we just create our own interpretation of a pop. My interpretation is the time from when the popper is set down, to when the popper leaves the ground. This is because as soon as you let the popper go on the ground, it is slowly accelerating, until it goes inside out and "pops".
DeleteI think that we have to define whether the term "pop" refers to the sound or the jump. Like Harrison said, that definition could change between groups.
Delete-Kevin Meglathery
Then what is the purpose of taking these measurements if they cannot support our claim? It does not make sense to say, "A 'pop' is the time between the initial placement of the popper and when it leaves the ground because it flies to a height of approximately 0.92 meters each time"
DeleteThe pop, based on our interpretation of it as far as I can see, is the physical, VISIBLE, explosive action in which the object turns inside out and leaves the ground. I do not believe Crane would provide meter sticks to measure sound. Noah, to define the pop we don't need the "because" part of your explanation. In this lab, we are searching for what we want to search for and we just happen to call it a "pop" although, if you wanted, you could say "we are looking to measure all facets of the device's activation and initiation from the ground" but we just like to say we're measuring the "pop"
DeleteIf the popper did not turn itself inside out would it make a sound. If a tree didn't fall in the woods would it make a sound. How long is a snap of your fingers. What causes the snap noise. The object does start to change but not accelerate. (Good point)
Deletei'm sorry but i'm still having issues finding the time of the pop without simply trying to use a stopwatch, which seems ridiculously inaccurate since i generally got .4 seconds and reaction time is .2 seconds (times 2 reactions would be .4). Using a slow motion camera or video seems like its cheating and also still inefficient to me as well. I tried to use 1/2at^2 but there are two different accelerations, gravity and the turning of the popper, and time would be required to figure that out.
ReplyDeleteAfter completing my calculations, I got an acceleration of several hundred meters per second squared. It seems ludicrous, but it would make sense because it is making contact with the table for such a short time. Anyone else get something similar?
ReplyDelete-Kevin Meglathery